                                                               
                      A Voice from Hebron
                     by Gary M. Cooperberg
                   Equal Rights for All Jews
          or Invitation to the Destruction of Judaism?
                         April 2, 1997
                                
     The so called "conversion bill", which passed its first reading in the Knesset yesterday has,
once again, caused a storm of controversy over the concept of  "religious pluralism" in Jewish life. 
The fact is that the bill itself does not imply any change in policy, rather it is an effort to prevent
any change in the current status quo.  All that it calls for is to anchor in law the already accepted
policy that conversions performed in Israel can only be performed by the orthodox rabbinate.  It,
unfortunately,  in no way affects the status of conversions outside of Israel.
     Whenever the subject of conversions comes up in Israel, we find a strong backlash of furor
on the part of both secular Jews and activists in non-orthodox Jewish movements.  Reform
Judaism was originally an effort to "modernize" Jewish observance while maintaining adherence
to Jewish Law.  It's founders never intended for it to make revisions to the Law of the Torah. 
Unfortunately, within a very short span of time, the little "minor modernizations" became a major
human revision of  Divine Law. 
     Conservative Judaism arose as an attempt to bridge the gap that developed between
Reform Judaism, which literally re-wrote Jewish observance, and the original concept which was
to keep Judaism intact, with minor modernizations.  Before long, Conservative Judaism also
found itself going beyond the limits and making far reaching changes to Jewish practice.  Along
with these so called "branches" others developed such as "Reconstructionist Judaism";
"Revisionist Judaism"; and there is even a concept of "Homosexual Judaism" (which is truly a
contradiction in terms, as homosexuality is explicitly defined in the Torah as an abomination).
     The truth is that we now know, from experience, that any attempt to even make minor
changes in Jewish Law, outside of  Rabbinical legislation, results in a complete change in Jewish
practice and actually violates Jewish Law!
     Leaders of the various new movements which have sprung up around Judaism clearly feel
that their movements are legitimate expressions of Judaism.  When such a movement seeks to
declare its right to define violations of Judaism as acceptable practices, it is understandable that
traditional Judaism would feel threatened and react.
     Jewish Law declares that the definition of a Jew is one who is either born of a Jewish
mother, or converted according to the Law.  No one can argue about the first part of the
definition.  If a person born of a Jewish mother does not observe Jewish Law, he is still, none the
less, a Jew.   If, however, a non Jew decides that he wants to become Jewish, and finds a Reform
Rabbi who welcomes him with open arms via procedures which are not according to accepted
Jewish practice, that individual, although very likely to sincerely want to be Jewish, is simply not a
Jew.  It is this fact which disturbs the leaders of the alternate versions of Judaism.  Further, even if
a Reform Rabbi were to perform the ritual procedures according to the rules of Jewish practice
(which is rare), such a conversion would not be acceptable if the rabbi himself is not an observant
Jew.
     With all the talk about the need to put aside differences and unify our people, we forget a
basic fact.  Judaism is not a legislated religion.  It is not subject to the will of the majority.  We
cannot conduct a poll to determine whether or not we permit Jews to eat shrimp or pork chops. 
We have no right to sanction violations of the Sabbath.  Yet there are those who claim that by not
accepting such changes for those who feel unable to live by these laws, we are estranging many
Jews from mainstream Judaism.  By not giving them the choice to "observe as they see fit", we
are rejecting many authentic Jews from an already tiny minority.  We therefore, it is argued,
cannot afford to lose these Jews by rejecting them.
     Of course the answer is simple.  We are not rejecting them.  While we certainly have no
right to change Jewish law for the convenience of those who feel unable to live by it, we have no
right to reject any Jew from Judaism.  We must stand by our brothers who have lost their way and
try to guide them back to authentic Judaism.  This will never be accomplished by our embracing
violations of Judaism.  The so called "rabbis" who demand "equal rights" yet who have junked the
concept that Judaism is based upon the Law given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai, are, in effect,
attacking the very foundation of Judaism and, if they succeed in their goal to become recognized
as legitimate, they will have actually destroyed Judaism and replaced it with a man made religion.
     The fundamental principles which are at odds here, once again, are democracy versus
Judaism.  While there certainly are elements of democracy within Judaism, Torah Law is not
subject to referendums.  A homosexual, for example, may be Jewish, but he is committing a grave
sin according to Jewish Law.  For a movement of such people to declare their abominable
behavior to be an acceptable "alternative lifestyle' within Jewish practice is outrageous.  Yet, by
current democratic values, they should have the right to have their own synagogues and conduct
their lives as they wish.  If  this is the case, who needs Judaism?   And further, if this is the case,
why bother calling this new expression of freedom, "Judaism".   Why can't these people leave
Judaism alone?  If they were honest they would simply admit that they reject Judaism and have
started a new religion.  Why is there a need for them to pervert an ancient heritage when they can
start anew?
     That is the crux of the problem.  If authentic Judaism accepts any or all of its off-shoots as
legitimate, it, in effect, has signed its own death warrant!   If  I want to eat pork chops and you
insist upon refraining from such delicacies why should that separate us as Jews?  If  I choose to
have a barbecue on the Sabbath and you prefer to observe the Sabbath in your way, why should
that separate us as Jews?  After all we are all Jews.  Shouldn't we learn to live and let live and
respect one another?
     Of course we are all Jews.  By all means we must learn to live together and tolerate our
differences.  But a line must be drawn when defining Judaism.  No one has a right to commit a sin
and declare it to be a mitzvah.  If you choose to commit a sin, that is your choice.  It saddens me,
but it doesn't cause me to reject you as a Jew.  But if you expect me to agree that your sins are an
acceptable alternative to Judaism, that I cannot and will never do.  The door to return to authentic
Judaism is always open to you, but I do not wish to even see the door which you hold open to me
to invite its destruction.  For once I accept that invitation, I close the door for your return to the
real thing.